The 13-man panel – which includes such former pros as Lee Dixon, Alex McLeish and Danny Murphy – have so far been twiddling their thumbs but that’s likely to change following an incident which took place at Selhurst Park on Saturday.

The 13-man panel – which includes such former pros as Lee Dixon, Alex McLeish and Danny Murphy – have so far been twiddling their thumbs but that’s likely to change following an incident which took place at Selhurst Park on Saturday.

That says he's on the thirteen man panel, not the three man panel, it may well have been, Lee Dixon or McLeish.

If this was Hazard or Coutinho there is not a chance on this earth this would have happened. We'd have been told they travel at such a speed and they play at such a high technical level that any slight touch will send them over.

In fact Scott Dann would probably have been charged retrospectively for violent conduct.

“the outspoken comments of Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, against Eduardo's initial ban could have proved pivotal to the turnaround.”

We don’t exert the same amount of media clout or pressure to put on the officials and so in a similar situation we end up with nothing happening and a rather muddled statement from Unsworth. The point is I think we could’ve done better.

Even if we were still to have lost the appeal it makes more sense to kick up enough of a fuss as it gives us more ammunition and protection in future cases that are either for us or against us. There is a reason Mourinho and co are very public in their responses and players keep pointing out perceived injustices to the referees as it’s all in aid of getting a more favourable outcome down the line.

“the outspoken comments of Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, against Eduardo's initial ban could have proved pivotal to the turnaround.”

We don’t exert the same amount of media clout or pressure to put on the officials and so in a similar situation we end up with nothing happening and a rather muddled statement from Unsworth. The point is I think we could’ve done better.

Even if we were still to have lost the appeal it makes more sense to kick up enough of a fuss as it gives us more ammunition and protection in future cases that are either for us or against us. There is a reason Mourinho and co are very public in their responses and players keep pointing out perceived injustices to the referees as it’s all in aid of getting a more favourable outcome down the line.

“the outspoken comments of Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, against Eduardo's initial ban could have proved pivotal to the turnaround.”

We don’t exert the same amount of media clout or pressure to put on the officials and so in a similar situation we end up with nothing happening and a rather muddled statement from Unsworth. The point is I think we could’ve done better.

Even if we were still to have lost the appeal it makes more sense to kick up enough of a fuss as it gives us more ammunition and protection in future cases that are either for us or against us. There is a reason Mourinho and co are very public in their responses and players keep pointing out perceived injustices to the referees as it’s all in aid of getting a more favourable outcome down the line.

Although they can kick up more of a fuss as they’re unlikely to get slapped with frivolous appeals / bringing the game into disrepute charges etc because of who they are.

I doubt there’ll be equal treatment for everyone but there will be for the majority and it will become just another discussion point.

It is, and here on out is the test but given the number of games so far and avoidance to date, what are the odds of much more than 5 such decisions this season?

As I said earlier, if we’re really getting down to it if the intent is truly serious then the rules they’ve put in place are as much of a problem. Why can it be reviewed when the opponent gets a red card after and not their first yellow card? Why not review any such incident? Is saving time and their own money a stronger motivation than really tackling the problem? It’s just half arsed and that’s the aggravating part to me.

Yes, opening up the reviews would create a shit show to begin with but presumably there would be a learning curve after which players would cut it out. This solution is just nothing right now but a token effort to say they’ve done something. However they’ve just muddied the waters further to me.

It is, and here on out is the test but given the number of games so far and avoidance to date, what are the odds of much more than 5 such decisions this season?

As I said earlier, if we’re really getting down to it if the intent is truly serious then the rules they’ve put in place are as much of a problem. Why can it be reviewed when the opponent gets a red card after and not their first yellow card? Why not review any such incident? Is saving time and their own money a stronger motivation than really tackling the problem? It’s just half arsed and that’s the aggravating part to me.

To be honest, what benefit do Crystal Palace get out of this ban for our player ? The answer is none, the next two teams will benefit from Niasse alleged cheating not Palace. Surely it would be better and more fairer if Niasse was banned when we next play them.

To be honest, what benefit do Crystal Palace get out of this ban for our player ? The answer is none, the next two teams will benefit from Niasse alleged cheating not Palace. Surely it would be better and more fairer if Niasse was banned when we next play them.

This is a good point. In fact its a punishment for palace as it makes it more likely that their rivals for relagation west ham may take points off us

No I'll still agree. As I've acknowledged, how it is implemented will be the test, but I'm glad something more concrete is starting to be done about diving. Might take a while to get it right.

You do have to question the impartiality of those making the decisions, though.

Most former players are going to hold grudges against certain clubs they've played against in the past for one reason or another whilst I'd wager that every former referee on the panel will side towards their fellow referees.

I don't think we can moan too much either though. You can point at other examples and I think there have been some 'dives' on the same level as Niasse this year but it doesn't change the fact he went down with the sole purpose of trying to gain a penalty.

For those asking why it's a two match ban rather than a yellow card... we did get given the penalty (and scored) whereas a player that is caught diving in the game doesn't get a penalty to score from. A one match ban is probably sufficient like.

I doubt there’ll be equal treatment for everyone but there will be for the majority and it will become just another discussion point.

i seriously doubt anyone from the big 6 will get done from 'simulation' this season

they maybe one or two other incidents from lower prem teams, but the amount ALi and Sanchez have dived is a fucking joke. even more so when you dont discipline people who dive numerous times a match, then you go all out on someone who has never dived before

the panel is a joke.

Logged

Unsworth has a 100% League record at homeNorwich 3-0 15th May 2016Watford 3-2 5th Nov 2017West Ham 4-0 29th Nov 2017To Be Continued.....

I don't think it's a conspiracy against us specifically, it's just that if you're playing for one of the "big" or more fashionable teams, you're less likely to be charged. I've got no issue with the ban discrepancy however, it's the same as in criminal courts, pleading guilty results in a reduced sentence.

We are one of the bigger clubs though, relative to the league average.

I tend to think we get the rub of the green more often than not in refs' decisions. Can think of far more times we've got lucky with a decision rather than massive injustices in the last couple years.